SavedAdd your journal

Journals / IOJET / 2019 / Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1

“TEACHING GRAMMAR IS NOT MY MAIN RESPONSIBILITY”: EXPLORING EFL TEACHERS’ BELIEFS ABOUT GRAMMAR TEACHING

Tuğba Elif TOPRAK
Journal
IOJET
Pages
205–221
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Moreover, it was found that most teachers favored aninductive, integrative and communicative approach to grammar teaching.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This mixed-methods study investigated a hundred university EFL teachers’ beliefs aboutseveral issues in grammar teaching.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The findings of the study demonstrated that mostteachers believed in the centrality of grammar instruction to helping language learners attain asubstantial proficiency in English.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Moreover, it was found that most teachers favored aninductive, integrative and communicative approach to grammar teaching.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This mixed-methods study investigated a hundred university EFL teachers’ beliefs aboutseveral issues in grammar teaching. Teachers’ beliefs about these issues such as the explicitand implicit teaching of grammar, its integration with other language skills, and the role of ateacher in grammar teaching were elicited by means of a questionnaire. Furthermore, semistructuredinterviews were conducted with ten volunteer teachers to obtain more in-depthinformation about teachers’ reported beliefs. These results were analyzed by using thedescriptive statistics and in-vivo coding. The findings of the study demonstrated that mostteachers believed in the centrality of grammar instruction to helping language learners attain asubstantial proficiency in English. Moreover, it was found that most teachers favored aninductive, integrative and communicative approach to grammar teaching. Although teachers’reported beliefs were, overall, in harmony with the literature on grammar teaching, there wereno hints suggesting that teachers were aware of grammar theories or their beliefs were basedon SLA/grammar literature. The findings indicated that the distinction between pedagogicaldichotomies proposed in the literature seemed to blur in the practice since teachers frequentlyreferred to personal and contextual features as the main factors shaping their beliefs andpractices.

🔖

Cite This Article

TOPRAK, T. E. (2022). “TEACHING GRAMMAR IS NOT MY MAIN RESPONSIBILITY”: EXPLORING EFL TEACHERS’ BELIEFS ABOUT GRAMMAR TEACHING. IOJET, Cilt: 6 - Sayı: 1, 205–221. https://ajindex.com/articles/542343

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Bell, H. (2016). Teacher knowledge and beliefs about grammar: A case study of an English primary school. English in Education, 50(2), 148–163.
  2. Borg, S. (1998). Teachers' pedagogical systems and grammar teaching: A qualitative study. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 9–38.
  3. Borg, S. (1999a). Studying teacher cognition in second language grammar teaching. System, 27, 19–31.
  4. Borg, S. (1999b). Teachers’ theories in grammar teaching. ELT Journal, 53, 157–167.
  5. Borg, S. (1999c). The use of grammatical terminology in the second language classroom: A qualitative study of teachers’ practices and cognitions. Applied Linguistics, 20, 95–126.
  6. Borg, S. (2003). Teacher cognition in grammar teaching: A literature review. Language Awareness, 12(2), 96–108.
  7. Borg, S. (2006). Teacher cognition and language education: Research and practice. London: Continuum. Borg, S., & Burns, A. (2008). Integrating grammar in adult TESOL classrooms. Applied Linguistics, 29(3), 456–482.
  8. Burgess, J., & Etherington, S. (2002). Focus on grammatical form: Explicit or implicit? System, 30, 433–458.
  9. Burns, A. (1992). Teacher beliefs and their influence on classroom practice. Prospect, 7(3), 56–66.
  10. Burns, A. (1996). Starting all over again: From teaching adults to teaching beginners. In D. Freeman & J. C. Richards (eds.), Teacher learning in language teaching (pp. 154−77). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Calderhead, J. (1996). Teachers: Beliefs and knowledge. In D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 709-725). New York: Macmillan Library Reference USA. Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 1–47.
  12. Chandler, R. (1988). Unproductive busywork. English in Education, 22(3), 20–28.
  13. Doughty, C. (2003). Instructed SLA: Constraints, compensation, and enhancement. In M. Long & C. Doughty (Eds.), Handbook of second language acquisition (pp. 257–310).
  14. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Eisenstein-Ebsworth, M., & Schweers, C. W. (1997). What researchers say and practitioners do: Perspectives on conscious grammar instruction in the ESL classroom. Applied Language Learning, 8, 237−60. Ellis, R. (1998). Teaching and research: Options in grammar teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 32(1), 39–60.
  15. Ellis, R. (2006). Current issues in the teaching of grammar: An SLA perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 83–107.
  16. Ellis, R., Loewen, S., & Bastürkmen, H. (2006). Disentangling focus on form. A response to Sh